pharmaceutics

Article

Polymer Distribution and Mechanism Conversion inMultiple Media of Phase-SeparatedControlled-Release Film-Coating

Lu Chen, Guobao Yang, Xiaoyang Chu, Chunhong Gao, Yuli Wang, Wei Gong, Zhiping Li,Yang Yang, Meiyan Yang * and Chunsheng Gao *

State key Laboratory of Toxicology and Medical Countermeasures, Beijing Institute of Pharmacology andToxicology, Beijing 100850, China; c670406@163.com (L.C.); yangguobao0101@163.com (G.Y.);cxy15010248773@163.com (X.C.); 13521775490@163.com (C.G.); wangyuli764@126.com (Y.W.);usnitro2004@126.com (W.G.); dearwood2010@126.com (Z.L.); jiamusi101@126.com (Y.Y.)* Correspondence: ymyzi@163.com (M.Y.); gaocs@bmi.ac.cn (C.G.); Tel.: +86-10-6693-1638 (M.Y.);

+86-10-6693-1638 (C.G.); Fax: +86-10-6821-1656 (M.Y.); +86-10-6821-1656 (C.G.)

Received: 4 January 2019; Accepted: 3 February 2019; Published: 14 February 2019�����������������

Abstract: Phase-separated films of water-insoluble ethyl cellulose (EC) and water-solublehydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC) can be utilized to tailor drug release from coated pellets. In the presentstudy, the effects of HPC levels and the pH, type, ionic strength and osmolarity of the media on therelease profiles of soluble metoprolol succinates from the EC/HPC-coated pellets were investigated,and the differences in drug-release kinetics in multiple media were further elucidated through theHPC leaching and swelling kinetics of the pellets, morphology (SEM) and water uptake of the freefilms and the interaction between the coating polymers and the media compositions. Interestingly,the drug release rate from the pellets in different media was not in agreement with the drug solubilitywhich have a positive correlation with the drug dissolution rate based on Noyes–Whitney equationlaw. In particular, the drug release rate in acetate buffer at pH 4.5 was faster than that in other mediadespite the solubility of drug was relatively lower, regardless of the HPC levels. It may be attributedto the mutual effect between the EC and acetate buffer, which improved the permeability of the film.In contrast, the release of drug in HCl solution was dependent on the HPC levels. Increasing thelevels of HPC increased the effects of hydrogen ions on the polymer of HPC, which resulted in a lowerviscosity and strength of the gel, forming the larger size of pores in polymer films, thus increasingthe drug diffused from the coating film. Further findings in phosphate buffer showed a reduction inthe drug release compared to that in other media, which was only sensitive to the osmolarity ratherthan the HPC level and pH of the buffer. Additionally, a mathematical theory was used to betterexplain and understand the experimentally measured different drug release patterns. In summary,the study revealed that the effects of the media overcompensated that of the drug solubility to someextent for controlled-release of the coating polymers, and the drug release mechanism in multiplemedia depend on EC and HPC rather than on HPC alone, which may have a potential to facilitate theoptimization of ideally film-coated formulations.

Keywords: release media; hydroxypropyl cellulose; ethyl cellulose; microstructure; film-coating;release mechanism

1. Introduction

Polymer blend coatings of water-insoluble ethyl cellulose (EC) and water-soluble hydroxypropylcellulose (HPC) can be utilized to control drug release from pellets in oral solid-dosage forms, in whichHPC act as a pore-former [1–6]. When exposed to aqueous solution, the mass transport of the EC/HPC

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80; doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics11020080 www.mdpi.com/journal/pharmaceutics

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 2 of 21

film-coated pellets is illustrated in Figure 1. The process always includes the following steps: (1)aqueous fluids penetrating into the system; (2) polymer swelling; (3) drug dissolving and pore-formerleaching; (4) pores/channels forming in the film or the osmosis-driven water influx into the system,the hydrostatic pressure is built inside the pellets; and (5) gradual drug release into the bulk fluidover time by diffusion, osmotic processes, or a combination of the two mechanisms [7–9]. Therefore,from the above process, it is revealed that the drug release is influenced by many factors—such asmanufacturing conditions [10] and formulation variables including drug solubility [11] molecularweight [1,2,12,13], and the level of coating polymer [3,5,6,14,15]—which have been extensively reportedon in recent years.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, x 2 of 21

dosage forms, in which HPC act as a pore-former [1–6]. When exposed to aqueous solution, the mass transport of the EC/HPC film-coated pellets is illustrated in Figure 1. The process always includes the following steps: (1) aqueous fluids penetrating into the system; (2) polymer swelling; (3) drug dissolving and pore-former leaching; (4) pores/channels forming in the film or the osmosis-driven water influx into the system, the hydrostatic pressure is built inside the pellets; and (5) gradual drug release into the bulk fluid over time by diffusion, osmotic processes, or a combination of the two mechanisms [7–9]. Therefore, from the above process, it is revealed that the drug release is influenced by many factors—such as manufacturing conditions [10] and formulation variables including drug solubility [11] molecular weight [1,2,12,13], and the level of coating polymer [3,5,6,14,15]—which have been extensively reported on in recent years.

Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the drug release process from a film-coated pellet.

Additionally, the drug release patterns were also affected by the in vitro test conditions. In addition to the rotation speed and temperature, the pH of the medium [16,17], the buffer composition and capacity [18,19], and the ionic strength or osmolarity of the release media are also important to the drug release [20–22]. To simulate the physiological conditions of the GI tract, in vitro release media containing HCl, acetate, and phosphate in the pH range of 1~7.6 are commonly used [18]. Wesseling and Bodmeier reported that the higher degree of dissociation of the sodium lauryl sulfate (which is present in the aqueous-based EC dispersion) in pH 7.4 buffer resulted in the faster drug release compared to that in 0.1 M HCl [23]. In addition, the release of drug is increased sharply in pH 1.16 and pH 7.45 buffer solutions compared with that in water, owing to the depolarization of the polymer HPMC and, thus, lowering of the viscosity and strength of the film [24]. Interestingly, even at the same pH of 5.4, the drug release of quinidine gluconate was more faster in acetate buffer than in phosphate buffer [25]. Meanwhile, the ionic strength of the media also has an effect on the HPC system. The degree of hydration and swelling of HPC was decreased as the ionic strengths increased from 0 to 2.0, and the drug release decreased with lower molecular weights of HPC according to the investigation of Johnson et al. [21].

More importantly, the selection of the test conditions is crucial for the in vitro–in vivo correlation (IVIVC) [14,26,27]. Scheubel et al. showed that using the IVIVC with HCl solution to predict the performance of a drug in vivo was superior to using other pH values and types of media [28]. Additionally, for phosphate buffer solutions with different buffer capacities and ionic strengths, the release profiles and IVIVCs were significantly different, which revealed that an inappropriate in vitro model would lead to low predictions [18]. Generally, it is necessary to have a deeper understanding of in vitro processes and the influences of the EC/HPC film to provide better insight for polymer-coated pellets. However, there is little reporting on the effect of the release media on the drug-release kinetics and microstructure of the EC/HPC film, as well as the release mechanism.

In this article, metoprolol succinate (MS) was used as the model drug due to its good aqueous solubility irrespective of the pH of the media, a relatively short plasma half-life (t1/2 = 3–4 h) and accuracy and simplicity of analytical method (by ultraviolet spectrophotometer) [14,29,30]. The different blend ratios of EC/HPC (100:0; 80:20, 78:22, 76:24, 74:26 w/w) coated MS-pellets and the corresponding free-coating films obtained by spraying were designed and prepared. The in vitro drug release characteristics of the pellets were evaluated in deionized water, HCl solution at pH 1.2,

Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the drug release process from a film-coated pellet.

Additionally, the drug release patterns were also affected by the in vitro test conditions.In addition to the rotation speed and temperature, the pH of the medium [16,17], the buffer compositionand capacity [18,19], and the ionic strength or osmolarity of the release media are also important to thedrug release [20–22]. To simulate the physiological conditions of the GI tract, in vitro release mediacontaining HCl, acetate, and phosphate in the pH range of 1~7.6 are commonly used [18]. Wesselingand Bodmeier reported that the higher degree of dissociation of the sodium lauryl sulfate (whichis present in the aqueous-based EC dispersion) in pH 7.4 buffer resulted in the faster drug releasecompared to that in 0.1 M HCl [23]. In addition, the release of drug is increased sharply in pH 1.16and pH 7.45 buffer solutions compared with that in water, owing to the depolarization of the polymerHPMC and, thus, lowering of the viscosity and strength of the film [24]. Interestingly, even at the samepH of 5.4, the drug release of quinidine gluconate was more faster in acetate buffer than in phosphatebuffer [25]. Meanwhile, the ionic strength of the media also has an effect on the HPC system. Thedegree of hydration and swelling of HPC was decreased as the ionic strengths increased from 0 to 2.0,and the drug release decreased with lower molecular weights of HPC according to the investigation ofJohnson et al. [21].

More importantly, the selection of the test conditions is crucial for the in vitro–in vivo correlation(IVIVC) [14,26,27]. Scheubel et al. showed that using the IVIVC with HCl solution to predict theperformance of a drug in vivo was superior to using other pH values and types of media [28].Additionally, for phosphate buffer solutions with different buffer capacities and ionic strengths,the release profiles and IVIVCs were significantly different, which revealed that an inappropriatein vitro model would lead to low predictions [18]. Generally, it is necessary to have a deeperunderstanding of in vitro processes and the influences of the EC/HPC film to provide better insightfor polymer-coated pellets. However, there is little reporting on the effect of the release media on thedrug-release kinetics and microstructure of the EC/HPC film, as well as the release mechanism.

In this article, metoprolol succinate (MS) was used as the model drug due to its good aqueoussolubility irrespective of the pH of the media, a relatively short plasma half-life (t1/2 = 3–4 h)and accuracy and simplicity of analytical method (by ultraviolet spectrophotometer) [14,29,30].The different blend ratios of EC/HPC (100:0; 80:20, 78:22, 76:24, 74:26 w/w) coated MS-pelletsand the corresponding free-coating films obtained by spraying were designed and prepared. The

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 3 of 21

in vitro drug release characteristics of the pellets were evaluated in deionized water, HCl solution atpH 1.2, acetate buffer at pH 4.5 and phosphate buffer at pH 6.8, respectively. The influence of themedia (pH, compositions, and osmolality/ionic strength) on the drug release, polymer composition,water uptake, microstructure and mechanisms of mass transport was also studied. In addition,a mathematical theory was used to better explain and understand the polymer distribution and drugrelease mechanism conversion in different media for EC/HPC films. The deeper insights obtainedinto how the film coating performs controlled drug release in media will benefit the design anddevelopment of pharmaceutical EC/HPC systems.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Ethyl cellulous (EC, ethocel standard 10 premiums, Colorcon Coating Technique Company,Shanghai, China). Hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC grade LF, Hercules Incorporated, Wilmintong, IL,USA). MS Celphere (CP305, Asahi Kasei Chemicals Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Metoprolol succinate(99.5% purity, Jiashi Lianbo Medical Development, Co., Ltd., Beijing, China). Sodium chloride (NaCl,Sinopharm Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd., Beijing, China). Ethanol (95%, Beijing Zhenyu MinshengPharmaceutical, Co., Ltd., Beijing, China) was used for polymer dissolution. Hydrochloric acid,sodiumhydroxide, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, sodium acetate, acetic acid, potassium chlorideand potassium nitrate were purchased from Sinopharm Chemical Reagent, Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China).All reagents were of either analytical or chromatographic grades.

2.2. Solubility of Metoprolol Succinate

The solubility of the metoprolol succinate was measured by loading over-dose drug into 10-mLpenicillin bottles containing 5–8 mL different release media (n = 3), which were shaken for 72 h at37 ◦C in a shaking table (HNY-200B, INCUBATOR SHAKER, Tianjin, China). The saturated drugsolutions were diluted and extracted through a 0.45-µm filter, then assayed by a UV spectrophotometer(UV-1750, Shimadzu, Japan) after appropriate dilutions (λ = 274 nm; UV-1750). The plateau valueswere considered as the drug solubility.

2.3. Preparation of Coated Pellets

2.3.1. Drug-Layered Starter Cores

Pellet starter cores were coated with a drug solution consisting of 60% (w/v) metoprolol succinate,deionized water as solvent in a fluidized bed coater (GPCG-1, Glatt GmbH, Binzen, Germany). Theprocess parameters were as follows: inlet air temperature 65 ◦C, spray rate 10–13 g/min, atomizationpressure 2.0 bar. The final drug loading was 0.6 g/g which was determined by UV spectrophotometryat a wavelength of 274 nm (UV-1750, Shimadzu, Japan), and the layered MS-MCC cores weresieved through 40-mesh and 30-mesh sieves to remove undersized or oversized particles after thelayering process.

2.3.2. Film-Coated Controlled Release Pellets

The drug-layered MCC cores were coated with different blend ratios of EC/HPC (100:0, 80:20,78:22, 76:24, 74:26) solution in 95% v/v ethanol in a GPCG-1 fluidized bed coater using the bottomspray method (GPCG-1, Glatt GmbH, Binzen, Germany). The polymer solution (polymer comment= 6% w/w) was placed under vigorous magnetic stirring overnight. The coating conditions were asfollows: inlet air temperature 55 ± 3 ◦C, atomization pressure 2.0 bar, spray rate 12.4–16.6 g/min.After coating, the pellets were further fluidized at 60 ◦C in the fluidized bed for additional 20 min toreduce the residual solvents. The average thickness of the film was 42.15 ± 5.29 µm.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 4 of 21

2.4. Characterization of Coated Pellets

2.4.1. In Vitro Drug Release Measurement

The in vitro drug release experiments were performed under sink conditions upon exposure to500 mL deionized water, HCl solution at pH 1.2, phosphate buffer pH at 6.8 and acetate buffer pHat 4.5 using the USP 35 paddle method at 37 ◦C, respectively. Stirring rate was 100 rpm (RCZ-8Mdissolution tester, Tianjin, China). 5 mL samples were withdrawn at predetermined time points (1, 2, 4,8, 12, 16, 20, 24 h), then filtered through a 0.45-µm filter, and using a UV-spectrophotometer to analyzethe content of drug (λ = 274 nm, UV-1750, Shimadzu, Japan). All drug release studies were conductedin triplicate.

2.4.2. Pellet Swelling Monitoring

To study the pellet swelling behavior, the size of the pellets during dissolution was monitored. Atpredetermined time points, we carefully removed the excess water on the surface of sample pellets,and the diameter of pellets was measured in the wet state (diameter (t)) using an optical microscopeanalysis system (Nikon ECLIPSE E-100, Tokyo, Japan) equipped with a Nikon camera (Nikon D5100,Tokyo, Japan). The increase in pellet diameter (%) at each time was calculated as

increase in pellet diameter (%)(t) =diameter(t)−diameter(0)

diameter(0)·100% (1)

where diameter (0) is the diameter of pellets at time t = 0. Each dissolution cup contained 100 pelletsupon exposure to each medium

2.4.3. Osmotic Pressure Determination

To obtain the effects of osmotic pressure in the different media on drug release from the coatedcontrolled-release pellets, NaCl was added to adjust the pressure of the media (deionized water, HClsolution at pH 1.2, phosphate buffer at pH 6.8 and acetate buffer at pH 4.5). The osmolality of therelease media and metoprolol succinate aqueous solutions were performed with an osmometer (SMC30C, Tianhe medical instrument Co., Ltd., Tianjin, China), which uses the freezing point depressionmethod [6,31]. Release studies were performed as described in Section 2.4.1. Each experiment wascarried out in triplicate.

2.5. HPC Leaching and Viscosity in Different Media

To simulate the release of the HPC pore-former from the controlled-release system, we used thecoated pellets to determine the HPC leakage profiles. The samples were analyzed by size exclusionchromatography and refractive index detection (SEC-RI). The reference substance was dissolved ina mobile phase containing 10 mM NaCl and 0.02% w/v NaN3 for at least 48 h prior to analysis. Thecolumn was a TSK gel GMPWXL 7.8 mm D × 30.0 cm L, with a mean particle size of 13 µm (TOSOHCorporation, Japan). The sample concentration was 0.2 mg/mL, and the volume of the injected samplewas 100 µL using a flow rate of 0.5 mL/min.

The viscosity of polymer in solution depends upon the physicochemical property of it, such asthe chemical structure, molecular weight and its interactions with the solvent [16]. Formulating arange of concentrations of water-soluble HPC solutions in the different study media (n = 3, 37 ◦C),and determination of the viscosity of the solutions were achieved with a viscometer (Fungilab,VISCOLEAD ADV, Co. Ltd., Barcelona, Spain). Each experiment was conducted in triplicate.

2.6. Preparation of Free Films

The use of free films to predict coating properties and mass transport has been reported as aconvenient method [5]. Therefore, EC/HPC free films were prepared by spraying a solution of 6% w/w

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 5 of 21

polymer and 94% w/w ethanol (95% v/v) through a moving atomizer nozzle onto a rotating cylinder(diameter = 60 mm, length = 80 mm) in a controlled temperature and air flow. The setup was designedto simulate fluidized bed for film spraying on pellets, which has been reported elsewhere [1,15]. Thecylinder was first covered with 70 mm wide Teflon tape to help film removal from the cylinder afterdrying. The spraying process parameters were as follows: inlet air temperature 70 ± 2 ◦C, atomizationpressure 2.0 bar, spray rate 12.45 g/min, cylinder rotation 80 rpm. After spraying, the film was left todry for an additional 20 min. For each film, the amount of polymer dry weight was about 6 g, giving ita final thickness of 90–110 µm, which ensured sufficient detection for SEM analysis. The films werestored at room temperature in a desiccator containing silica gel.

2.7. Water Uptake and Microstructure of Free Films

The water-uptake kinetics of the free films were determined by gravimetrically upon exposure todeionized water and different concentrations of acetate buffer with a pH of 4.5, optionally containing80% w/w EC and 20% w/w HPC. Pieces of 2 × 2 cm2 were placed into a 300-mL dissolution cupfilled with 200 mL preheated media (37 ◦C, 100 rpm, ZRS-6G, dissolution tester, Tianjin, China; n = 3).At predetermined time points (0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 4, 8, 24 h), the films were withdrawn and wereaccurately weighed (wet mass (t)) after the excess surface water was carefully removed, then the filmwas dried to a constant mass at 60 ◦C (dry mass (t)). The water content (%) was calculated as

water content (%)(t) =wet mass(t)−dry mass(0)

wet mass(t)·100% (2)

The microstructures of the different blend ratios of EC/HPC films before and after exposureto the release media were studied using a scanning electron microscope/SEM (S-4800 AnalyticalElectron Microscope, Hitachi, Japan). Film pieces, approximately 2 × 2 cm2 each, were added to a300-mL dissolution cup filled with 200 mL medium and incubated for 24 h at 37 ◦C (100 rpm, ZRS-6G,dissolution tester, Tianjin, China; n = 3) to certify that both sides of the pieces were exposed to themedia. After 24 h, the films were dried in a desiccator containing silica gel for ≥ 3 days to test. Thesamples were loaded onto a copper sample holder, sputter-coated with carbon followed by goldin a vacuum using a sputter coater (E-1010, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan), and then observed under anexcitation voltage.

2.8. Mathematical Modeling

The type of pellets considered in this study consisted of a solid core coated with a polymer film.The total mass balance for this type of coated formulation upon exposure to an aqueous solution canbe written as [5]

dMdt

= ρ·Jv (3)

where M is the mass of the coated formulation, ρ is the density of the bulk. Jv is the net volumetricbulk flow through the coating and depends upon the flow of both the medium and the drug.

For a homogeneous film, Jv also can be written according to the reversiblethermodynamic equation

Jv =Kh·A·(σ·∆π − ∆P) (4)

where K is the water permeability of the film with respect to the solvent, σ is the drug reflectioncoefficient, h is the coating film thickness, and A is the surface area of the coating film. The osmoticpressure difference across the film is ∆π, and ∆P stands for the hydrostatic pressure difference betweenthe two sides of the film. The reflection coefficient σ is a correction factor that describes the sievingcapability of the coating film for the solute [32]. When the film is completely impermeable, it onlyallows water to flow through the pores/cracks and not the solute molecules. In that case, the hydrostatic

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 6 of 21

pressure will be built up inside the pellets and the reflection coefficient is 1. For a semipermeableor leaky film, it is similar to impermeable film, the reflection coefficient was between zero and one,and the release mechanism is mainly osmotic pumping when 0 < σ ≤ 1. When the pore sizes in filmbecome larger than the diameter of the solute molecule, allowing the solute outflow, the drug reflectioncoefficient approaches 0, which causing the osmotic pressure to be negligible and the drug release tooccur mainly by diffusion. Furthermore, the ∆P in Equation (4) can be replaced by ∆C, which meansthe drug concentration difference across the permeable film, to represent the drug release rate fromthe coated formulation. The total mass balance through a coated formulation upon exposure to anyaqueous solution can be written as

dMdt

=Ah·K·(σ·∆π − ∆P)·Cs +

Ah·D·∆C (5)

where Cs stands for the drug concentration of the saturated solution and D is the diffusion coefficientof the drug through the coating polymer films.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Drug Release from EC/HPC Film-Coated Pellets

3.1.1. Effects of the Media pH

The profiles of drug release from the EC/HPC coated pellets (the HPC level was 20%, 22%, 24%and 26% w/w, respectively) were measured in deionized water, HCl solution at pH 1.2, phosphatebuffer at pH 6.8 and acetate buffer at pH 4.5, respectively, and the results are shown in Figure 2.As expected, HPC acted as pore-former in the coat only within a small range from 20% to 26% w/w ofthe coating and could regulate the release of drug from the coated pellets to a great degree. Interestingly,some unusual tendencies were also observed as follows. The release of the drug was faster in acetatebuffer at pH 4.5 and slower in phosphate buffer at pH 6.8 than that in the other media, regardless ofthe level of HPC. However, when the release medium was HCl solution at pH 1.2, the tendency andacceleration of drug release were dependent on the HPC levels. As the HPC increased, the drug releaserate changed from slow (20%) to fast (24%) compared with that in the other media. The solubilityof the metoprolol succinate in the respective media at 37 ◦C (Table 1) confirmed that although thesolubility of drug tends to decrease with increasing pH values (except for water), the differences isrelatively small and cannot be fully attributed to the different release profiles. Therefore, it could beconcluded that the different drug release rates are may influenced by the effects of the media on thecoating polymer.

As previously shown, the drug release mechanism is primarily controlled by osmotic pumpingin 20% HPC films (in which the drug release rates from a semipermeable film will decrease with theosmotic pressure of the release medium increases) and by diffusion with 24% HPC films (in whichthe drug release rates will increase as the concentration gradient across the porous film increases),respectively [3,5,6]. Therefore, with a lower percentage of HPC, the slower drug release observed inpH 1.2 and 6.8 buffer than that in water can be attributed to the higher osmolarity of the bulk solution;however, this was not consistent with the drug release in acetate buffer, in which the osmolarity wasmore than that in water (Table 1). Additionally, the drug burst release in HCl solution with a higherpercentage of HPC cannot be explained by the limited drug solubility alone. Therefore, this suggestedthat the different release media likely played an important role in changing the microstructure of thepolymer films (e.g., the film permeability and sizes of the pores or channels) by affecting the propertiesof EC or HPC, thereby altering the release mechanisms of the coated pellet.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 7 of 21Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, x 7 of 21

Figure 2. Drug release profiles from coated pellets with different blend ratio of ethyl cellulose (EC) and hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC) in deionized water, HCl solution at pH 1.2, acetate buffer at pH 4.5 (0.05 M) and phosphate buffer at pH 6.8 at 37 °C, respectively. (A) EC:HPC=80:20; (B) EC:HPC=78:22; (C) EC:HPC=76:24; and (D) EC:HPC=74:26. Error bars represent standard deviation.

Table 1. Summary of metoprolol succinate solubility and osmolality in different media at 37 °C (n = 3)

Solute Solubility (mg/mL) Osmolarity (π) of the solution (mOsmol/kg)

Deionized water 276.05 ± 3.27 0 HCl solution, pH 1.2 303.53 ± 2.84 174 ± 1.64

Phosphate buffer pH 6.8 249.20 ± 8.69 105 ± 1.81 Acetate buffer pH 4.5 (0.05 M ) 268.82 ± 9.21 70 ± 2.13 Acetate buffer pH 4.5 (0.005 M ) 259.93 ± 2.24 7 ± 1.12 Acetate buffer pH 4.5 (0.5 M ) 304.79 ± 9.62 730 ± 0.95 MS (Saturated solution-water) - 1050 ± 2.34 MS (Saturated solution-HCl) - 1294 ± 1.85

MS (Saturated solution-phosphate buffer) - 1160 ± 2.01 MS (Saturated solution-acetate buffer) - 1152 ± 2.16

3.1.2. Effects of Media Composition

Based on the unusual drug release rates from the pellets in HCl solution at pH 1.2 and acetate buffer at pH 4.5, the release rates of the drug were further studied in different ionic compositions and strengths of buffers to evaluate the media effects. The release profiles obtained are illustrated in Figure 3. In one profile, when the pore-former level was 24%, the drug release rate decreased as the value of pH in the HCl solution increased from 1.2 to 3.0 (ionic strength decreased from 0.06 to 0.001), but there were no differences in the release rates when a 0.1 M solution of potassium chloride or a 0.1 M solution of potassium nitrate was added into the HCl solution at pH 1.2 (Figure 3A), which means that the fast drug release in HCl solution was mainly attributable to the concentration of hydrogen ions (above 0.001 M), rather than to the anion of the media. Meanwhile, with the concentration of acetate buffer increased, the drug solubility and release rate also increased, but the differences in

Figure 2. Drug release profiles from coated pellets with different blend ratio of ethyl cellulose (EC) andhydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC) in deionized water, HCl solution at pH 1.2, acetate buffer at pH 4.5(0.05 M) and phosphate buffer at pH 6.8 at 37 ◦C, respectively. (A) EC:HPC=80:20; (B) EC:HPC=78:22;(C) EC:HPC=76:24; and (D) EC:HPC=74:26. Error bars represent standard deviation.

Table 1. Summary of metoprolol succinate solubility and osmolality in different media at 37 ◦C (n = 3)

Solute Solubility (mg/mL) Osmolarity (π) of the Solution(mOsmol/kg)

Deionized water 276.05 ± 3.27 0HCl solution, pH 1.2 303.53 ± 2.84 174 ± 1.64

Phosphate buffer pH 6.8 249.20 ± 8.69 105 ± 1.81Acetate buffer pH 4.5 (0.05 M) 268.82 ± 9.21 70 ± 2.13

Acetate buffer pH 4.5 (0.005 M) 259.93 ± 2.24 7 ± 1.12Acetate buffer pH 4.5 (0.5 M) 304.79 ± 9.62 730 ± 0.95

MS (Saturated solution-water) - 1050 ± 2.34MS (Saturated solution-HCl) - 1294 ± 1.85

MS (Saturated solution-phosphate buffer) - 1160 ± 2.01MS (Saturated solution-acetate buffer) - 1152 ± 2.16

3.1.2. Effects of Media Composition

Based on the unusual drug release rates from the pellets in HCl solution at pH 1.2 and acetatebuffer at pH 4.5, the release rates of the drug were further studied in different ionic compositionsand strengths of buffers to evaluate the media effects. The release profiles obtained are illustrated inFigure 3. In one profile, when the pore-former level was 24%, the drug release rate decreased as thevalue of pH in the HCl solution increased from 1.2 to 3.0 (ionic strength decreased from 0.06 to 0.001),but there were no differences in the release rates when a 0.1 M solution of potassium chloride or a 0.1 Msolution of potassium nitrate was added into the HCl solution at pH 1.2 (Figure 3A), which means thatthe fast drug release in HCl solution was mainly attributable to the concentration of hydrogen ions

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 8 of 21

(above 0.001 M), rather than to the anion of the media. Meanwhile, with the concentration of acetatebuffer increased, the drug solubility and release rate also increased, but the differences in rates werenot significantly at the range of 0.05–0.5 M. In the other profile, when the pore-former level was 20%,the release rates of the drug were more rapid in acetate buffer at pH 4.5 than in phosphate buffer at pH4.5, and interestingly, the opposite effect was observed for the acetate buffer concentration (the effectsof the ionic strength of the medium) on the resulting drug-release kinetics from semipermeable films.Upon increasing the concentration of the acetate buffer (pH 4.5), the release rate of the drug significantlyincreased compared with the release rate from 24% HPC pellets (Figure 3B), which revealed that themass transport from the EC/HPC film was altered in the presence of these carboxyl groups and thehigher the ratio of EC in coating, the greater the influence on drug release, regardless of the osmolarityof the buffer. In contrast, upon exposure to the phosphate buffer and HCl solution, the release rate wasonly dependent upon the osmolarity rather than the pH value, which was in accord with the osmoticmechanism for a leaky film (the data measured in HCl solution are not shown). These results indicatedthat variations in the media composition will influence the underlying drug release mechanisms andmight bring about unexpected changes in the final drug release patterns, which should be taken intoaccount during such product design and optimization.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, x 8 of 21

rates were not significantly at the range of 0.05–0.5 M. In the other profile, when the pore-former level was 20%, the release rates of the drug were more rapid in acetate buffer at pH 4.5 than in phosphate buffer at pH 4.5, and interestingly, the opposite effect was observed for the acetate buffer concentration (the effects of the ionic strength of the medium) on the resulting drug-release kinetics from semipermeable films. Upon increasing the concentration of the acetate buffer (pH 4.5), the release rate of the drug significantly increased compared with the release rate from 24% HPC pellets (Figure 3B), which revealed that the mass transport from the EC/HPC film was altered in the presence of these carboxyl groups and the higher the ratio of EC in coating, the greater the influence on drug release, regardless of the osmolarity of the buffer. In contrast, upon exposure to the phosphate buffer and HCl solution, the release rate was only dependent upon the osmolarity rather than the pH value, which was in accord with the osmotic mechanism for a leaky film (the data measured in HCl solution are not shown). These results indicated that variations in the media composition will influence the underlying drug release mechanisms and might bring about unexpected changes in the final drug release patterns, which should be taken into account during such product design and optimization.

Figure 3. Drug release profiles from pellets in different media. (A) Influence of different anions, pH values of the HCl solution and concentration of the acetate buffer at pH 4.5: pellets containing 24% w/w HPC. (B) Influence of different pH values, compositions and ionic strengths of the release media: pellets containing 20% w/w HPC. Error bars represent standard deviation.

3.2. Microstructure of Free EC/HPC Film

To clearly understand the reasons for the above-described tendencies, SEM observations of free films in different media were conducted (Figures 4 and 5). Interestingly, the microstructure of EC/HPC films was in consistent with the results of the drug release from pellets characteristics measured in the tested media. First, no remarkable cracks or pores were observed in the films before the experiments, irrespective of the level of HPC (Figures 4A and 5A). The white solid on the surface may be product leftover from the coating solution and did not affect the experimental results. To summarize, the SEM images respectively represented by films containing 20% and 24% HPC showed several phenomena. (i) As the amount of HPC increased, the number of self-formed pores in the films increased, thus increasing the porosity and permeability of the EC/HPC films and accelerating the drug release (Figures 2,4 and 5). (ii) With 20% HPC in the free films, the pore sizes were strongly affected by the acetate buffer (Figure 4), producing deeper and larger pore sizes than those in the films facing the other media, especially as the concentration increased, which caused the sizes of the pores in the films to become larger (0.18 ± 0.16 µm, 0.21 ± 0.19 µm, 0.35 ± 0.17 µm, and 0.52 ± 0.31 µm measured in deionized water and 0.005 M, 0.05 M, and 0.5 M acetate buffers, respectively). (iii) Furthermore, films with 24% HPC immersed in HCl solution at pH 1.2 showed the largest pore size

Figure 3. Drug release profiles from pellets in different media. (A) Influence of different anions, pHvalues of the HCl solution and concentration of the acetate buffer at pH 4.5: pellets containing 24%w/w HPC. (B) Influence of different pH values, compositions and ionic strengths of the release media:pellets containing 20% w/w HPC. Error bars represent standard deviation.

3.2. Microstructure of Free EC/HPC Film

To clearly understand the reasons for the above-described tendencies, SEM observations of freefilms in different media were conducted (Figures 4 and 5). Interestingly, the microstructure of EC/HPCfilms was in consistent with the results of the drug release from pellets characteristics measured in thetested media. First, no remarkable cracks or pores were observed in the films before the experiments,irrespective of the level of HPC (Figures 4A and 5A). The white solid on the surface may be productleftover from the coating solution and did not affect the experimental results. To summarize, the SEMimages respectively represented by films containing 20% and 24% HPC showed several phenomena.(i) As the amount of HPC increased, the number of self-formed pores in the films increased, thusincreasing the porosity and permeability of the EC/HPC films and accelerating the drug release(Figures 2, 4 and 5). (ii) With 20% HPC in the free films, the pore sizes were strongly affected by theacetate buffer (Figure 4), producing deeper and larger pore sizes than those in the films facing the

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 9 of 21

other media, especially as the concentration increased, which caused the sizes of the pores in the filmsto become larger (0.18 ± 0.16 µm, 0.21 ± 0.19 µm, 0.35 ± 0.17 µm, and 0.52 ± 0.31 µm measured indeionized water and 0.005 M, 0.05 M, and 0.5 M acetate buffers, respectively). (iii) Furthermore, filmswith 24% HPC immersed in HCl solution at pH 1.2 showed the largest pore size (0.73 ± 0.43 µm)compared to acetate buffer at pH 4.5 (0.05 M, 0.51 ± 0.19 µm) and water/pH 6.8 phosphate buffer(0.22 ± 0.11 µm), producing films which could diffuse drugs more easily (Figure 5).

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, x 9 of 21

(0.73 ± 0.43 µm) compared to acetate buffer at pH 4.5 (0.05 M, 0.51 ± 0.19 µm) and water/pH 6.8 phosphate buffer (0.22 ± 0.11 µm), producing films which could diffuse drugs more easily (Figure 5).

In conclusion, based on the results of drug release and microstructure testing of the free films, it was concluded that the type and ionic strength of the media largely affected the pore structure of the coating films. Especially, films containing different levels of HPC will be significantly controlled by acetate buffer and HCl solution, respectively. The pore shape, in turn, can be related to film permeability and pore connectivity, which play important roles in controlling the drug release and release mechanism [33,34]. Therefore, our study added the evidence to explain the different mass transport processes in that the structure of the film is greatly influenced by the polymer composition and pore-former levels, release media in particular.

Figure 4. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of films containing 20% w/w HPC (A) before and after being submerged in dissolution media with different release buffers for 24 h: (B) deionized water, (C) HCl solution at pH 1.2, (D) phosphate buffer at pH 6.8, (E) 0.005 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5, (F) 0.05 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5, and (G) 0.5 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5.

Figure 5. SEM images of films containing 24% w/w HPC (A) before and after being submerged in dissolution media with different release buffers for 24 h: (B) deionized water, (C) HCl solution at pH 1.2, (D) phosphate buffer at pH 6.8, and (E) 0.05 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5.

3.3. Influence of Media on HPC Properties

HPC is a hydrophilic polymer which can be hydrated, swollen and solubilized in water to act as a pore-former, forming pores or channels in the coating film or making the polymer film microporous and inducing drug release [24]. The major factors governing the dissolution rate, hydration and

Figure 4. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of films containing 20% w/w HPC (A) beforeand after being submerged in dissolution media with different release buffers for 24 h: (B) deionizedwater, (C) HCl solution at pH 1.2, (D) phosphate buffer at pH 6.8, (E) 0.005 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5,(F) 0.05 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5, and (G) 0.5 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, x 9 of 21

(0.73 ± 0.43 µm) compared to acetate buffer at pH 4.5 (0.05 M, 0.51 ± 0.19 µm) and water/pH 6.8 phosphate buffer (0.22 ± 0.11 µm), producing films which could diffuse drugs more easily (Figure 5).

In conclusion, based on the results of drug release and microstructure testing of the free films, it was concluded that the type and ionic strength of the media largely affected the pore structure of the coating films. Especially, films containing different levels of HPC will be significantly controlled by acetate buffer and HCl solution, respectively. The pore shape, in turn, can be related to film permeability and pore connectivity, which play important roles in controlling the drug release and release mechanism [33,34]. Therefore, our study added the evidence to explain the different mass transport processes in that the structure of the film is greatly influenced by the polymer composition and pore-former levels, release media in particular.

Figure 4. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of films containing 20% w/w HPC (A) before and after being submerged in dissolution media with different release buffers for 24 h: (B) deionized water, (C) HCl solution at pH 1.2, (D) phosphate buffer at pH 6.8, (E) 0.005 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5, (F) 0.05 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5, and (G) 0.5 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5.

Figure 5. SEM images of films containing 24% w/w HPC (A) before and after being submerged in dissolution media with different release buffers for 24 h: (B) deionized water, (C) HCl solution at pH 1.2, (D) phosphate buffer at pH 6.8, and (E) 0.05 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5.

3.3. Influence of Media on HPC Properties

HPC is a hydrophilic polymer which can be hydrated, swollen and solubilized in water to act as a pore-former, forming pores or channels in the coating film or making the polymer film microporous and inducing drug release [24]. The major factors governing the dissolution rate, hydration and

Figure 5. SEM images of films containing 24% w/w HPC (A) before and after being submerged indissolution media with different release buffers for 24 h: (B) deionized water, (C) HCl solution atpH 1.2, (D) phosphate buffer at pH 6.8, and (E) 0.05 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5.

In conclusion, based on the results of drug release and microstructure testing of the free films,it was concluded that the type and ionic strength of the media largely affected the pore structure ofthe coating films. Especially, films containing different levels of HPC will be significantly controlledby acetate buffer and HCl solution, respectively. The pore shape, in turn, can be related to filmpermeability and pore connectivity, which play important roles in controlling the drug release andrelease mechanism [33,34]. Therefore, our study added the evidence to explain the different mass

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 10 of 21

transport processes in that the structure of the film is greatly influenced by the polymer compositionand pore-former levels, release media in particular.

3.3. Influence of Media on HPC Properties

HPC is a hydrophilic polymer which can be hydrated, swollen and solubilized in water to act as apore-former, forming pores or channels in the coating film or making the polymer film microporousand inducing drug release [24]. The major factors governing the dissolution rate, hydration andgelation or erosion rate of the HPC are the chemistry, viscosity, concentration, and particle size ofthe HPC, which will influence the drug release from the polymer films to a certain extent [35,36].Normally, the drug release rate increases with increased leaching of HPC and the more viscous thehydrophilic polymers, the faster is the swelling of its side chains and the greater is the resistance topolymer erosion, slowing the drug release rate [5,16,37–39].

3.3.1. HPC Leaching from Coated Pellet

Figure 6 shows the HPC leaching profiles from the film-coated pellets with different levels ofHPC in different media. First, less HPC (4%) was leached from the coating films containing 20%HPC after soaking for 24 h in deionized water. However, when the HPC level increased from 22% to26%, the dissolution of HPC increased drastically (from 27% to 65%) (Figure 6A). In this case, HPC isprobably capsulated by EC when the level is below 22%, then the leaching is thereby hindered [5,40].When the level is high, a continuous phase rich with HPC will be created, and pores or channels canbe formed easily throughout the film due to the quick leaching of the HPC-rich phase, acceleratingthe release of the drug [1]. Nevertheless, although the water-soluble HPC mainly controls drugrelease, there were no fundamental differences in the cumulative amount of HPC leached between thedifferent media, regardless of the HPC level or the type and ionic strength of the media, surprisingly(Figure 6B,C). In comparison with the related drug release profiles, when one unit of HPC wasdissolved, the amount of drug released from the pellets in HCl solution or acetate buffer was abouttwice that in water. This further indicated that the pore sizes of the films became larger and better ableto diffuse more of the drug across the coating film, rather than this observation being the effect of theamount of HPC dissolved. Therefore, the other properties of HPC changed in different media mightact as important factors affecting the pore structure of free films and the overall release of a drug.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, x 10 of 21

gelation or erosion rate of the HPC are the chemistry, viscosity, concentration, and particle size of the HPC, which will influence the drug release from the polymer films to a certain extent [35,36]. Normally, the drug release rate increases with increased leaching of HPC and the more viscous the hydrophilic polymers, the faster is the swelling of its side chains and the greater is the resistance to polymer erosion, slowing the drug release rate [5,16,37–39].

3.3.1. HPC Leaching from Coated Pellet

Figure 6 shows the HPC leaching profiles from the film-coated pellets with different levels of HPC in different media. First, less HPC (4%) was leached from the coating films containing 20% HPC after soaking for 24 h in deionized water. However, when the HPC level increased from 22% to 26%, the dissolution of HPC increased drastically (from 27% to 65%) (Figure 6A). In this case, HPC is probably capsulated by EC when the level is below 22%, then the leaching is thereby hindered [5,40]. When the level is high, a continuous phase rich with HPC will be created, and pores or channels can be formed easily throughout the film due to the quick leaching of the HPC-rich phase, accelerating the release of the drug [1]. Nevertheless, although the water-soluble HPC mainly controls drug release, there were no fundamental differences in the cumulative amount of HPC leached between the different media, regardless of the HPC level or the type and ionic strength of the media, surprisingly (Figure 6B,C). In comparison with the related drug release profiles, when one unit of HPC was dissolved, the amount of drug released from the pellets in HCl solution or acetate buffer was about twice that in water. This further indicated that the pore sizes of the films became larger and better able to diffuse more of the drug across the coating film, rather than this observation being the effect of the amount of HPC dissolved. Therefore, the other properties of HPC changed in different media might act as important factors affecting the pore structure of free films and the overall release of a drug.

Figure 6. HPC leaching profiles from coated pellets in different media at 37 °C. (A) Leaching of HPC from pellets containing 20, 22, 24, and 26% HPC in deionized water. (B) The difference between HPC leaching in water and in HCl solution at pH 1.2 with EC: HPC (80:20, 78:22, 76:24, and 74:26) film-coated pellets and (C) the release of pellets containing 20% HPC in different media. Data are presented as mean ± SD, n = 3.

3.3.2. Viscosity of HPC Solution

Figure 7 shows the differences in viscosity of the HPC solution between HCl solution at pH 1.2, acetate buffer at pH 4.5, phosphate buffer at pH 6.8 and deionized water, respectively (the results in water as contrast). The concentration of HPC in the solution was 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 w/w. Initially, there were no differences in viscosity among the media with low concentrations of HPC, this could be owing to the HPC is dispersed as a very small region. However, as the amount of

Figure 6. HPC leaching profiles from coated pellets in different media at 37 ◦C. (A) Leaching of HPCfrom pellets containing 20, 22, 24, and 26% HPC in deionized water. (B) The difference between HPCleaching in water and in HCl solution at pH 1.2 with EC: HPC (80:20, 78:22, 76:24, and 74:26) film-coatedpellets and (C) the release of pellets containing 20% HPC in different media. Data are presented asmean ± SD, n = 3.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 11 of 21

3.3.2. Viscosity of HPC Solution

Figure 7 shows the differences in viscosity of the HPC solution between HCl solution at pH 1.2,acetate buffer at pH 4.5, phosphate buffer at pH 6.8 and deionized water, respectively (the results inwater as contrast). The concentration of HPC in the solution was 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0w/w. Initially, there were no differences in viscosity among the media with low concentrations ofHPC, this could be owing to the HPC is dispersed as a very small region. However, as the amount ofHPC increased, diversity appeared. As the concentration of HPC in the solution increased, the declinein viscosity in HCl solution compared to water was more than that in acetate buffer and phosphatebuffer. It can be concluded that the percentage of erosion increased and the percentage of swellingdecreased as the viscosity of HPC decreased, forming a weak gel layer upon the entry of HCl solutioninto the polymer, which may also weaken the binding of EC, thus changing the microstructure of thecoating by increasing the size of the pores formed in the films (Figure 5C). Meanwhile, as the viscosityand swelling of the gel layer decreased, the thickness of this region became thinner and the distancethat the drug had to travel to be diffused decreased, which increased the drug release rate. Therefore,although the amount of HPC leached from the pellets was similar in the different media, the viscosityof HPC changed upon exposure to the HCl solution, may occur and influence the nature, permeabilityand microstructure of the coating, thus influencing the drug release from EC/HPC system.

Likewise, based on the Equation (5), when the film became permeable to the drug, the reflectioncoefficient σ approached 0, and the drug could be diffused from the larger pores in the coatingfilms, producing a positive correlation between the drug release rate and the drug solubility. In thiscase, the faster release in HCl solution can also be attributed to the greater solubility: 303.53 vs.276.05 mg/mL (at 37 ◦C) at pH 1.2 and in water, respectively. In conclusion, when the level of HPC isabove 22% w/w, the drug release rates from the film depend on both the effect of the concentration ofhydrogen ions (pH) on the HPC-rich area and drug solubility.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, x 11 of 21

HPC increased, diversity appeared. As the concentration of HPC in the solution increased, the decline in viscosity in HCl solution compared to water was more than that in acetate buffer and phosphate buffer. It can be concluded that the percentage of erosion increased and the percentage of swelling decreased as the viscosity of HPC decreased, forming a weak gel layer upon the entry of HCl solution into the polymer, which may also weaken the binding of EC, thus changing the microstructure of the coating by increasing the size of the pores formed in the films (Figure 5C). Meanwhile, as the viscosity and swelling of the gel layer decreased, the thickness of this region became thinner and the distance that the drug had to travel to be diffused decreased, which increased the drug release rate. Therefore, although the amount of HPC leached from the pellets was similar in the different media, the viscosity of HPC changed upon exposure to the HCl solution, may occur and influence the nature, permeability and microstructure of the coating, thus influencing the drug release from EC/HPC system.

Likewise, based on the Equation (5), when the film became permeable to the drug, the reflection coefficient σ approached 0, and the drug could be diffused from the larger pores in the coating films, producing a positive correlation between the drug release rate and the drug solubility. In this case, the faster release in HCl solution can also be attributed to the greater solubility: 303.53 vs. 276.05 mg/mL (at 37 °C) at pH 1.2 and in water, respectively. In conclusion, when the level of HPC is above 22% w/w, the drug release rates from the film depend on both the effect of the concentration of hydrogen ions (pH) on the HPC-rich area and drug solubility.

Figure 7. The differences in viscosity of different concentrations of HPC solutions in media at 37 °C, with water as a contrast. Data are presented as mean ± SD, n = 3.

3.4. Influence of Media on EC-Coating Film Properties

3.4.1. Drug Release From Pellets

Pure EC-coated pellet release experiments were performed to investigate the possible effect of the media on the drug-release kinetics and microstructure of the polymer film. The pure-EC pellet release results are presented in Figure 8. It can be seen that all the drug release kinetics are consistent with the results from pellets containing 20% HPC. In general, EC is a water-insoluble polymer regarded as poorly permeable to most drugs and that follows the principle of osmosis. However, the higher drug release rate in the higher osmolality of the acetate buffer indeed showed that the presence of acetate/acetic acid in the medium could influence the permeability and pore structure of the EC film. Thus, comprehensive understanding of the release mechanism from EC-coated pellets during the whole mass transport process may be more necessary. The total zero-order drug release rates (RT) from EC/HPC (100:0, 80:20) pellets in each medium were estimated from the linear portion of the release curves (R2 > 0.99), and the data are summarized in Table 2. As it can be seen, with the increase in the concentration of acetate buffer at pH 4.5, the increase of the RT (pure EC) component was more significant than that of the RT (80% EC) component of the release rate, as indicated by the ratio of RT (pure

EC) to RT (80% EC); however, with the amount of HPC increased, the overall drug release rate increased,

Figure 7. The differences in viscosity of different concentrations of HPC solutions in media at 37 ◦C,with water as a contrast. Data are presented as mean ± SD, n = 3.

3.4. Influence of Media on EC-Coating Film Properties

3.4.1. Drug Release From Pellets

Pure EC-coated pellet release experiments were performed to investigate the possible effect of themedia on the drug-release kinetics and microstructure of the polymer film. The pure-EC pellet releaseresults are presented in Figure 8. It can be seen that all the drug release kinetics are consistent withthe results from pellets containing 20% HPC. In general, EC is a water-insoluble polymer regardedas poorly permeable to most drugs and that follows the principle of osmosis. However, the higherdrug release rate in the higher osmolality of the acetate buffer indeed showed that the presence ofacetate/acetic acid in the medium could influence the permeability and pore structure of the EC

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 12 of 21

film. Thus, comprehensive understanding of the release mechanism from EC-coated pellets duringthe whole mass transport process may be more necessary. The total zero-order drug release rates(RT) from EC/HPC (100:0, 80:20) pellets in each medium were estimated from the linear portion ofthe release curves (R2 > 0.99), and the data are summarized in Table 2. As it can be seen, with theincrease in the concentration of acetate buffer at pH 4.5, the increase of the RT (pure EC) componentwas more significant than that of the RT (80% EC) component of the release rate, as indicated by theratio of RT (pure EC) to RT (80% EC); however, with the amount of HPC increased, the overall drug releaserate increased, decreasing the contribution of pure EC to the release rate (0.29 vs. 0.20 vs. 0.37measured in 0.05 M acetate buffer with 22% HPC, 0.05 M and 0.5 M acetate buffer with 24% HPC,respectively). Hence, it was further proven that the reason for the unusual drug release rate in acetatebuffer were might mainly depend on the higher concentration of acetate buffer alter the propertiesand permeability of the EC-rich area (>78%). Additionally, the drug solubility was slightly increasedwhen the concentration of acetate buffer was within 0.005 M–0.5 M (259.93 mg/mL vs. 304.79 mg/mL,Table 1), facilitating dissolution to a certain extent according to the Noyes–Whitney equation.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, x 12 of 21

decreasing the contribution of pure EC to the release rate (0.29 vs. 0.20 vs. 0.37 measured in 0.05 M acetate buffer with 22% HPC, 0.05 M and 0.5 M acetate buffer with 24% HPC, respectively). Hence, it was further proven that the reason for the unusual drug release rate in acetate buffer were might mainly depend on the higher concentration of acetate buffer alter the properties and permeability of the EC-rich area (> 78%). Additionally, the drug solubility was slightly increased when the concentration of acetate buffer was within 0.005 M–0.5 M (259.93 mg/mL vs. 304.79 mg/mL, Table 1), facilitating dissolution to a certain extent according to the Noyes–Whitney equation.

Figure 8. Effects of the pH and ionic strength of the release medium (deionized water; HCl solution at pH 1.2; phosphate buffer at pH 6.8; and 0.005 M, 0.05 M, and 0.5 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5) on the release of metoprolol succinate from HPC-free EC-coated pellets. Straight lines represent the region from which zero-order release rates were estimated (R2 > 0.99). Error bars represent standard deviation.

Table 2. Summary of RT (pure EC) and RT (80% EC) determined from linear regression data in Figures 3 and 8.

Medium RT (pure EC)- %-h RT (80% EC) - %-h RT (pure EC) / RT (80% EC) Deionized water 0.758 2.318 0.32

0.005 M, acetate buffer pH 4.5 1.025 2.987 0.34 0.05 M, acetate buffer pH 4.5 2.276 3.632 0.63 0.5 M, acetate buffer pH 4.5 4.680 6.189 0.76

3.4.2. Water Uptake and Swelling Study

The water permeability of free films (100 µm) and the swelling kinetics of the pellets were determined in different concentrations of acetate buffer at pH 4.5 and 37 °C, respectively (Figure 9). As expected, there was an accordant trend between the water uptake kinetics of the polymer films, the swelling kinetics of the pellets and the drug release profile. First, the water content was positively correlated with the concentrations of acetate buffer, resulting in an increase in the permeability of the films (Figure 9A). Likewise, Figure 9B shows the changes in the diameter of the coated pellets, which substantially increased in the first 2 h in all three media; however, as the concentration of the acetate buffer was reduced, there was significantly prolonged time point during which the diameters of the pellets decreased. This is because (i) initially, the coating film is semipermeable to the drug, only allow water driving in, producing dissolution of the drug. (ii) Because of the mass accumulation inside the core, swelling of the pellet. (iii) Then, due to the dissolved drug outflow through the cracks or small pores in coating film, caused the pellet size to decrease. Based on the results from the water content and swelling experiments, the higher the concentration of the acetate buffer, the faster is the water absorption of the film and the swelling rate of the pellets, resulting in an increased drug dissolution rate and shortening the time to maintain saturation. As a result, the release of the drug became increasingly fast. Furthermore, the pellet variability in the media at 37 °C after 6 h is also reflected in the microscope pictures in Figure 10. As it can be seen, almost all pellets decreased in size

Figure 8. Effects of the pH and ionic strength of the release medium (deionized water; HCl solution atpH 1.2; phosphate buffer at pH 6.8; and 0.005 M, 0.05 M, and 0.5 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5) on therelease of metoprolol succinate from HPC-free EC-coated pellets. Straight lines represent the regionfrom which zero-order release rates were estimated (R2 > 0.99). Error bars represent standard deviation.

Table 2. Summary of RT (pure EC) and RT (80% EC) determined from linear regression data in Figures 3and 8.

Medium RT (pure EC)-%-h RT (80% EC)-%-h RT (pure EC)/RT (80% EC)

Deionized water 0.758 2.318 0.320.005 M, acetate buffer pH 4.5 1.025 2.987 0.340.05 M, acetate buffer pH 4.5 2.276 3.632 0.630.5 M, acetate buffer pH 4.5 4.680 6.189 0.76

3.4.2. Water Uptake and Swelling Study

The water permeability of free films (100 µm) and the swelling kinetics of the pellets weredetermined in different concentrations of acetate buffer at pH 4.5 and 37 ◦C, respectively (Figure 9).As expected, there was an accordant trend between the water uptake kinetics of the polymer films,the swelling kinetics of the pellets and the drug release profile. First, the water content was positivelycorrelated with the concentrations of acetate buffer, resulting in an increase in the permeability ofthe films (Figure 9A). Likewise, Figure 9B shows the changes in the diameter of the coated pellets,which substantially increased in the first 2 h in all three media; however, as the concentration of theacetate buffer was reduced, there was significantly prolonged time point during which the diametersof the pellets decreased. This is because (i) initially, the coating film is semipermeable to the drug,only allow water driving in, producing dissolution of the drug. (ii) Because of the mass accumulation

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 13 of 21

inside the core, swelling of the pellet. (iii) Then, due to the dissolved drug outflow through the cracksor small pores in coating film, caused the pellet size to decrease. Based on the results from the watercontent and swelling experiments, the higher the concentration of the acetate buffer, the faster isthe water absorption of the film and the swelling rate of the pellets, resulting in an increased drugdissolution rate and shortening the time to maintain saturation. As a result, the release of the drugbecame increasingly fast. Furthermore, the pellet variability in the media at 37 ◦C after 6 h is alsoreflected in the microscope pictures in Figure 10. As it can be seen, almost all pellets decreased in sizebecause of the drug being released from the pellets after 6 h (Figure 9B). Some looked like deflatedballoons. The opaque black contents of the pellets can be seen as the undissolved MCC core and thedrug. The nonopaque contents of the pellets can be explained by the dissolved drug solution and theincreasing concentration of acetate buffer at pH 4.5. The increase of nonopaque contents of the pelletsfurther demonstrated that the acetate buffer concentration can increase the hydrophilicity of the ECfilms and, thus, affect drug release behavior (the ratio of nonopaque pellets over the total pellets after6 h: 0.005 M-2.5%; 0.05 M-6%; 0.5 M-30%, n = 100).

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, x 13 of 21

because of the drug being released from the pellets after 6 h (Figure 9B). Some looked like deflated balloons. The opaque black contents of the pellets can be seen as the undissolved MCC core and the drug. The nonopaque contents of the pellets can be explained by the dissolved drug solution and the increasing concentration of acetate buffer at pH 4.5. The increase of nonopaque contents of the pellets further demonstrated that the acetate buffer concentration can increase the hydrophilicity of the EC films and, thus, affect drug release behavior (the ratio of nonopaque pellets over the total pellets after 6 h: 0.005 M-2.5%; 0.05 M-6%; 0.5 M-30%, n = 100).

The results obtained from the swelling kinetics of the coated pellets and water uptakes of the free films can, thus, help in better understanding the unexpected drug release profiles observed in coated pellets containing below 20% HPC in the acetate buffer at pH 4.5. The differences in the drug release behavior could be mainly attributed to the effects of the EC interacting with the acetate buffer, rather than to the osmolality, resulting in the membrane becoming more transparent and more water permeable and changing the overall drug release mechanism from zero-order release to first-order release.

Figure 9. EC/HPC (80:20) films upon exposure to different concentrations of acetate buffer at 37 °C. (A) Water uptake kinetics. (B) Pellet swelling—on the left y-axis, the percentage of drug release is plotted, and on the right y-axis, the increase in pellet diameter is shown (in %). Data are presented as mean ± SD.

Figure 10. Microscopic pictures of the pellets swelling upon exposure to different concentrations of acetate buffer after 6 h at 37 °C. On the left, the pellets are shown before exposure to the release medium, and on the right, after exposure to: (A) 0.005 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5, (B) 0.05 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5, and (C) 0.5 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5.

Figure 9. EC/HPC (80:20) films upon exposure to different concentrations of acetate buffer at 37 ◦C.(A) Water uptake kinetics. (B) Pellet swelling—on the left y-axis, the percentage of drug release isplotted, and on the right y-axis, the increase in pellet diameter is shown (in %). Data are presented asmean ± SD.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, x 13 of 21

because of the drug being released from the pellets after 6 h (Figure 9B). Some looked like deflated balloons. The opaque black contents of the pellets can be seen as the undissolved MCC core and the drug. The nonopaque contents of the pellets can be explained by the dissolved drug solution and the increasing concentration of acetate buffer at pH 4.5. The increase of nonopaque contents of the pellets further demonstrated that the acetate buffer concentration can increase the hydrophilicity of the EC films and, thus, affect drug release behavior (the ratio of nonopaque pellets over the total pellets after 6 h: 0.005 M-2.5%; 0.05 M-6%; 0.5 M-30%, n = 100).

The results obtained from the swelling kinetics of the coated pellets and water uptakes of the free films can, thus, help in better understanding the unexpected drug release profiles observed in coated pellets containing below 20% HPC in the acetate buffer at pH 4.5. The differences in the drug release behavior could be mainly attributed to the effects of the EC interacting with the acetate buffer, rather than to the osmolality, resulting in the membrane becoming more transparent and more water permeable and changing the overall drug release mechanism from zero-order release to first-order release.

Figure 9. EC/HPC (80:20) films upon exposure to different concentrations of acetate buffer at 37 °C. (A) Water uptake kinetics. (B) Pellet swelling—on the left y-axis, the percentage of drug release is plotted, and on the right y-axis, the increase in pellet diameter is shown (in %). Data are presented as mean ± SD.

Figure 10. Microscopic pictures of the pellets swelling upon exposure to different concentrations of acetate buffer after 6 h at 37 °C. On the left, the pellets are shown before exposure to the release medium, and on the right, after exposure to: (A) 0.005 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5, (B) 0.05 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5, and (C) 0.5 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5.

Figure 10. Microscopic pictures of the pellets swelling upon exposure to different concentrations ofacetate buffer after 6 h at 37 ◦C. On the left, the pellets are shown before exposure to the release medium,and on the right, after exposure to: (A) 0.005 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5, (B) 0.05 M acetate buffer atpH 4.5, and (C) 0.5 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 14 of 21

The results obtained from the swelling kinetics of the coated pellets and water uptakes of thefree films can, thus, help in better understanding the unexpected drug release profiles observed incoated pellets containing below 20% HPC in the acetate buffer at pH 4.5. The differences in thedrug release behavior could be mainly attributed to the effects of the EC interacting with the acetatebuffer, rather than to the osmolality, resulting in the membrane becoming more transparent andmore water permeable and changing the overall drug release mechanism from zero-order release tofirst-order release.

3.4.3. Microstructure

The surfaces of the pure-EC films displayed great differences in the different media, especially inacetate buffer (Figure 11). Surprisingly, the images clearly show that some small pores appeared inthe surface of the pure-EC film after being submerged in acetate buffer at pH 4.5 but were not foundin other media. The higher concentrations of acetate buffer, the more and larger pores are formed infilms (none, 0.041 ± 0.033 µm, and 0.061 ± 0.029 µm measured in water and 0.005 M acetate buffer,0.05 M, and 0.5 M acetate buffer, respectively). The drug released from the coated pellet followed bythe large-pore transport will be the key factors for fast drug release. The results were in consistentwith the water permeability of the film and the drug release from the pellets. Overall, when immersedin the release media, the solvent may penetrates into the free spaces between macromolecular chainsof the polymer to increase its mobility, and the water solubility of a polymer is related to its abilityto establish hydrogen bridges between the carboxyl groups of the acetate buffer and the hydroxylgroups of the polymer, such that the higher the number of strong polar carboxyl groups is, the fasterthe hydration is [16,41]. The dimensions of the polymer molecule may also increase due to polymerrelaxation from the stress of the penetrated solvent, which could increase the porosity, permeability,and hydrophilicity of the film. Therefore, the final size of the membrane pores may depend on thecombined action of EC and HPC, rather than on the impact of HPC alone.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, x 14 of 21

3.4.3. Microstructure

The surfaces of the pure-EC films displayed great differences in the different media, especially in acetate buffer (Figure 11). Surprisingly, the images clearly show that some small pores appeared in the surface of the pure-EC film after being submerged in acetate buffer at pH 4.5 but were not found in other media. The higher concentrations of acetate buffer, the more and larger pores are formed in films (none, 0.041 ± 0.033 µm, and 0.061 ± 0.029 µm measured in water and 0.005 M acetate buffer, 0.05 M, and 0.5 M acetate buffer, respectively). The drug released from the coated pellet followed by the large-pore transport will be the key factors for fast drug release. The results were in consistent with the water permeability of the film and the drug release from the pellets. Overall, when immersed in the release media, the solvent may penetrates into the free spaces between macromolecular chains of the polymer to increase its mobility, and the water solubility of a polymer is related to its ability to establish hydrogen bridges between the carboxyl groups of the acetate buffer and the hydroxyl groups of the polymer, such that the higher the number of strong polar carboxyl groups is, the faster the hydration is [16,41]. The dimensions of the polymer molecule may also increase due to polymer relaxation from the stress of the penetrated solvent, which could increase the porosity, permeability, and hydrophilicity of the film. Therefore, the final size of the membrane pores may depend on the combined action of EC and HPC, rather than on the impact of HPC alone.

Figure 11. SEM images of pure-EC films (A) before and after being submerged in dissolution media with different release buffers for 24h: (B) deionized water, (C) HCl solution at pH 1.2, (D) phosphate buffer at pH 6.8, (E) 0.005 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5, (F) 0.05 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5, and (G) 0.5 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5. The circles area showed the small pores formed in the pure-EC films.

3.5. Release Mechanism

To better understand and verify the validity, reliability and extent of the roles of above-described unusual tendencies of the release mechanism (osmosis/diffusion), the release of metoprolol succinate from EC/HPC (80:20, 78:22, 76:24 w/w) coated pellets was further investigated in different osmotic potential release media by adding adequate amounts of NaCl (deionized water, HCl solution at pH 1.2, acetate buffer at pH 4.5, and phosphate buffer at pH 6.8) (Figure 12). The zero-order release rates were estimated from the linear portions of the release profiles (R2 > 0.98). Clearly, increasing the osmolality of the release media caused a decreased in the rate of release, irrespective of the HPC levels and the type of media, indicating that the release of drug from EC/HPC-coated pellets will be affected by osmotic mechanisms, but the extent will differ. Interestingly, the decrease of the drug release rates with increased amounts of NaCl in the media was opposite to the results for the

Figure 11. SEM images of pure-EC films (A) before and after being submerged in dissolution mediawith different release buffers for 24h: (B) deionized water, (C) HCl solution at pH 1.2, (D) phosphatebuffer at pH 6.8, (E) 0.005 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5, (F) 0.05 M acetate buffer at pH 4.5, and (G) 0.5 Macetate buffer at pH 4.5. The circles area showed the small pores formed in the pure-EC films.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 15 of 21

3.5. Release Mechanism

To better understand and verify the validity, reliability and extent of the roles of above-describedunusual tendencies of the release mechanism (osmosis/diffusion), the release of metoprolol succinatefrom EC/HPC (80:20, 78:22, 76:24 w/w) coated pellets was further investigated in different osmoticpotential release media by adding adequate amounts of NaCl (deionized water, HCl solution at pH 1.2,acetate buffer at pH 4.5, and phosphate buffer at pH 6.8) (Figure 12). The zero-order release rates wereestimated from the linear portions of the release profiles (R2 > 0.98). Clearly, increasing the osmolalityof the release media caused a decreased in the rate of release, irrespective of the HPC levels and thetype of media, indicating that the release of drug from EC/HPC-coated pellets will be affected byosmotic mechanisms, but the extent will differ. Interestingly, the decrease of the drug release rateswith increased amounts of NaCl in the media was opposite to the results for the increased osmolalityof the acetate buffer and the HCl solution itself (Figure 3). With same osmolality of the media, the drugrelease rate was also faster in the acetate buffer and HCl solution than in the other media when thepellets contained 20% w/w and 24% w/w HPC in the coating, respectively. The results further certifiedthat the amount of acetate buffer and HCl can influence the structure of the EC/HPC film and theform of mass transport from the pellets.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, x 15 of 21

increased osmolality of the acetate buffer and the HCl solution itself (Figure 3). With same osmolality of the media, the drug release rate was also faster in the acetate buffer and HCl solution than in the other media when the pellets contained 20% w/w and 24% w/w HPC in the coating, respectively. The results further certified that the amount of acetate buffer and HCl can influence the structure of the EC/HPC film and the form of mass transport from the pellets.

Figure 12. Drug release from EC/HPC (80:20, 78:22, and 76:24 w/w)-coated pellets in release medium with increasing NaCl concentrations (mOsmol/kg) at 37 °C. Media: deionized water, phosphate buffer solution at pH 6.8, HCl solution at pH 1.2, and acetate buffer solution at pH 4.5. Straight lines represent the region from which the zero-order release rates were estimated (R2 > 0.98). Error bars represent standard deviation.

Theeuwes and Higuchi described the drug total zero-order release rate from a coated formulation to be the sum of the contributions from the osmotic pumping rate and transmembrane diffusive flux of the drug, using the following relationship [42]

RT = RO + RD = SS CDh

ACK

h

A ⋅⋅+⋅Δ⋅⋅ π (6)

where the Equation (6) is transformed from Equation (5), in which ΔP is typically negligibly small compared to Δπ, and the ΔC can be replaced by Cs because the drug concentration in the external media is very low compared to that inside the pellets [43]. Therefore, RO is the contribution from the

Figure 12. Drug release from EC/HPC (80:20, 78:22, and 76:24 w/w)-coated pellets in release mediumwith increasing NaCl concentrations (mOsmol/kg) at 37 ◦C. Media: deionized water, phosphate buffersolution at pH 6.8, HCl solution at pH 1.2, and acetate buffer solution at pH 4.5. Straight lines representthe region from which the zero-order release rates were estimated (R2 > 0.98). Error bars representstandard deviation.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 16 of 21

Theeuwes and Higuchi described the drug total zero-order release rate from a coated formulationto be the sum of the contributions from the osmotic pumping rate and transmembrane diffusive flux ofthe drug, using the following relationship [42]

RT = RO + RD =Ah·K·∆π·CS +

Ah·D·CS (6)

where the Equation (6) is transformed from Equation (5), in which ∆P is typically negligibly smallcompared to ∆π, and the ∆C can be replaced by Cs because the drug concentration in the externalmedia is very low compared to that inside the pellets [43]. Therefore, RO is the contribution from theosmotic mechanism to the zero-order release rate of drug, and RD is the contribution from the diffusionmechanism to the zero-order release rate of drug. According to Equation (6), the slope (k) of the linearfunction indicates the capability of water and solution to influx into the film under a pressure gradient,and the intercept indicates the contribution from the diffusive flux to zero-order release rate (RD).

The osmolality of the external medium and saturated drug aqueous solutions determined by thefreezing point depression method are summarized in Table 1. When the osmolality in the pellet corewas equal to the osmolality of the saturated drug aqueous solution, a linear regression was performedon the total drug zero-order release rate RT vs. the osmolality difference between the core and theexternal medium ∆π, which data are presented in Figure 13, and the regression parameters RT, RO,and RD, as well as RO over RT values are also summarized in Table 3.

The positive correlation between the RT and ∆π confirms that the osmosis-mediated drug releasemechanism was involved in the release of all media from the coated pellets. From Table 3, the slopeincreased as the amount of HPC increased when fixed in each medium, which indicated that HPCleakage increased the number of self-formed pores and produced higher water permeability throughthe membrane. However, with a fixed blend ratio of HPC (22% and 24%), the slope was reduced insolution at pH 1.2 and pH 4.5, which indicates a decrease in the water penetration rate into the systemby osmosis and an increase in the drug diffusion from the large-diameter pores (Figure 5), whichweakens the osmosis-driven effects. Therefore, the effects of the release media on these parameters canbe quantified, a deeper and comprehensive insight into the underlying drug release mechanisms canbe gained.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, x 16 of 21

osmotic mechanism to the zero-order release rate of drug, and RD is the contribution from the diffusion mechanism to the zero-order release rate of drug. According to Equation (6), the slope (k) of the linear function indicates the capability of water and solution to influx into the film under a pressure gradient, and the intercept indicates the contribution from the diffusive flux to zero-order release rate (RD).

The osmolality of the external medium and saturated drug aqueous solutions determined by the freezing point depression method are summarized in Table 1. When the osmolality in the pellet core was equal to the osmolality of the saturated drug aqueous solution, a linear regression was performed on the total drug zero-order release rate RT vs. the osmolality difference between the core and the external medium Δπ, which data are presented in Figure 13, and the regression parameters RT, RO, and RD, as well as RO over RT values are also summarized in Table 3.

The positive correlation between the RT and Δπ confirms that the osmosis-mediated drug release mechanism was involved in the release of all media from the coated pellets. From Table 3, the slope increased as the amount of HPC increased when fixed in each medium, which indicated that HPC leakage increased the number of self-formed pores and produced higher water permeability through the membrane. However, with a fixed blend ratio of HPC (22% and 24%), the slope was reduced in solution at pH 1.2 and pH 4.5, which indicates a decrease in the water penetration rate into the system by osmosis and an increase in the drug diffusion from the large-diameter pores (Figure 5), which weakens the osmosis-driven effects. Therefore, the effects of the release media on these parameters can be quantified, a deeper and comprehensive insight into the underlying drug release mechanisms can be gained.

Figure 13. Zero-order release rate at steady state versus the osmolality of the release medium with different ratios of EC/HPC-coated pellets. (A) Deionized water. (B) Phosphate buffer at pH 6.8. (C) HCl solution at pH 1.2. (D) Acetate buffer at pH 4.5. Straight lines represent the region from which slopes of linear regression analysis were obtained (R2 > 0.99).

Figure 13. Zero-order release rate at steady state versus the osmolality of the release medium withdifferent ratios of EC/HPC-coated pellets. (A) Deionized water. (B) Phosphate buffer at pH 6.8. (C)HCl solution at pH 1.2. (D) Acetate buffer at pH 4.5. Straight lines represent the region from whichslopes of linear regression analysis were obtained (R2 > 0.99).

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 17 of 21

Table 3. Summary of RT, Ro and RD determined from the linear regression of RT vs. ∆π data inFigure 13

Deionized Water RT-%/h %/h-(mOsmol/kg) RD-%/h Ro (RT-RD) Ro/RT

20% 2.318 0.002 −0.056 * 2.318 1.0022% 5.966 0.005 0.491 5.475 0.9224% 7.064 0.006 1.481 5.583 0.79

Phosphate bufferpH 6.8

20% 1.762 0.002 −0.055 * 1.762 1.0022% 5.033 0.005 0.241 4.792 0.9524% 6.418 0.006 1.226 5.192 0.81

HCl solution pH1.2

20% 1.465 0.002 −0.011 * 1.465 1.0022% 7.694 0.004 3.050 4.644 0.6024% 12.53 0.005 7.135 5.395 0.43

Acetate buffer pH4.5

20% 3.632 0.003 1.018 2.614 0.7222% 7.864 0.004 3.201 4.663 0.5924% 11.11 0.006 4.954 6.156 0.55

* hydrostatic pressure ∆P (see in Equation (4))

3.5.1. Deionized Water and Phosphate Buffer at pH 6.8

The results of the linear function determined with different ratios of HPC-coated pellets uponexposure to deionized water and phosphate buffer at pH 6.8 are shown in Figure 13A,B, respectively.As can be seen, despite the increasing amount of HPC, the release occurred mainly by osmoticpressure, and most of the coating was still semipermeable (Table 3). When the films contained 20%HPC, the release mechanism was totally due to osmotic pressure and the hydrostatic pressure (∆P)generated inside the core (see Equation (4)); however, as the leaching of HPC increased, the extent ofthe osmolality-driven release slightly decreased, and the hydrostatic pressure disappeared, as indicatedby the ratio of RO over RT. Additionally, note that there was little intercept in pellets with 22% and 24%HPC, indicating a minor contribution from drug diffusion through the polymer. This phenomenon canbe explained by the formation of pores in 20–24% HPC films immersed in water and phosphate bufferat pH 6.8 which allow the influx of water are smaller than the sizes of individual drug molecules,and the nature of the polymer is stable in these media (Figure 4B,D and Figure 5B,D). Therefore,although the amount of HPC and pores increased, the size of the pores did not increase remarkably.As a result, the drug release from the pellets coated with 20%-24% HPC in water and phosphate bufferat pH 6.8 is mainly driven by osmotic pressure, with a minor contribution from diffusion.

3.5.2. HCl Solution at pH 1.2

The total zero-order release rates from the coated pellets in HCl solution at pH 1.2 obviouslyincreased as the ratio of HPC increased from 20% to 22%/24% (Figure 13C). Meanwhile, with anincreased amount of HPC, the increase in the RD component was more significant than that of the RO

component of the drug release rate, as indicated by the ratio of RO over RT summarized in Table 3. Therelease mechanism transformed from totally osmotic to mainly by diffusion, which can be owing tothe self-formed pores of a large size for drug solution efflux (Figure 5C). In a word, this mathematicalmodeling further verified that the pore-structure of the coating film will be significantly responsiblefor differences in drug release rates for the medium of HCl solution at pH 1.2. With the pore sizes infilm became larger than the solute molecule’s diameter, the film’s sieving capability was lost, causingthe osmotic component to be negligible.

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 18 of 21

3.5.3. Acetate Buffer at pH 4.5

The results of the linear function determined from the exposure of different ratios of HPC-coatedpellets to acetate buffer at pH 4.5 were consistent with our findings concerning the pore structure ofEC/HPC films (Figure 13D). When the pellets were coated with 20% HPC, although the osmolality ofthe acetate buffer at pH 4.5 was higher than that of water (70 vs. 0 mOsmol/kg), the drug release ratewas still faster in acetate buffer. From the values of RO over RT shown in Table 3, the mechanism isalways a combination of osmotic and diffusion effects, regardless of the level of HPC, which meansthat the pore sizes became larger than that in the other media, which is proven in Figure 4. When thelevel of HPC was increased from 22% to 24%, the contribution of RO to the zero-order rate exhibited asteady trend, demonstrating that the pore size of the coating is not mainly dependent on the EC butalso on the amount of HPC. Overall, the drug release pattern and mechanism can be influenced bythe acetate buffer, especially affecting the properties of high-dose polymers of EC to obtain the fasterrelease of drugs.

In summary, the results of the osmotic pumping and diffusion mechanisms and both togetherin different media could better explain the abovementioned unusual drug release profiles. Theproperty/structure of the coating film play an important role in influencing the drug releasemechanisms. The larger the size of the pores in the films, the higher is the permeability of filmand the contribution of diffusion mechanism to accelerate the release rate, and the more drugs diffusethrough the coated pellets. It is clear that the diffusion mechanism is mainly attributed to the largervariation in pore size when the pellets are upon exposure to different media, while the smallerpores only participate in the osmosis-mediated flux of drugs. Therefore, study of the mechanismsreconfirmed that the release media can affect the pore structure of the EC/HPC films, affecting themass transport properties of the final film.

4. Conclusions

The drug release mechanism and microstructure of EC/HPC film-coated pellets were affectedby the film composition and the release media. Unexpected drug release patterns were observedin HCl solution at pH 1.2 and acetate buffer at pH 4.5, which may be respectively attributed tothe change in the property of the HPC-rich area (>22%) and EC-rich area (>78%) rather than in thepH-independent dissolution of HPC and solubility of the drug in the media. As a result, the pore sizeand permeability of the polymer films were significantly increased, making the diffusion mechanismbecome the dominant model based on the SEM and RO/RT results, thus obtaining a fast drug releaseprofile. Our study indicated the range of how drug release is affected by media and provided amechanistic understanding of how this type of drug delivery system controls drug release, which canbe very helpful in the design and optimization of ideal film-coated formulations.

Author Contributions: C.G. (Chunsheng Gao) and M.Y. conceived and designed the experiments, L.C.and G.Y. performed the experiments; X.C., C.G. (Chunhong Gao), Y.W. helped perform the analysis withconstructive discussions; W.G., Z.L., and Y.Y. provided assistance for data acquisition and statistical analysis;Lu Chen performed the data analyses and wrote the manuscript; C.G. (Chunsheng Gao) and M.Y. performedmanuscript review.

Funding: This study was financially supported by grant no. 2018ZX09711003-008-001.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interests.

References

1. Andersson, H.; Häbel, H.; Olsson, A.; Sandhagen, S.; Corswant, C.V.; Hjärtstam, J.; Persson, M.; Stading, M.;Larsson, A. The influence of the molecular weight of the water-soluble polymer on phase-separated films forcontrolled release. Int. J. Pharm. 2016, 511, 223–235. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 19 of 21

2. Marucci, M.; Andersson, H.; Hjartstam, J.; Stevenson, G.; Baderstedt, J.; Stading, M.; Larsson, A.; vonCorswant, C. New insights on how to adjust the release profile from coated pellets by varying the molecularweight of ethyl cellulose in the coating film. Int. J. Pharm. 2013, 458, 218–223. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

3. Marucci, M.; Ragnarsson, G.; von Corswant, C.; Welinder, A.; Jarke, A.; Iselau, F.; Axelsson, A. Polymerleaching from film coating: Effects on the coating transport properties. Int. J. Pharm. 2011, 411, 43–48.[CrossRef]

4. Siepmann, F.; Siepmann, J.; Walther, M.; Macrae, R.J.; Bodmeier, R. Polymer blends for controlled releasecoatings. J. Control. Release 2008, 125, 1–15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

5. Marucci, M.; Hjärtstam, J.; Ragnarsson, G.; Iselau, F.; Axelsson, A. Coated formulations: New insights intothe release mechanism and changes in the film properties with a novel release cell. J. Control. Release 2009,136, 206–212. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6. Mariagrazia, M.; Gert, R.; Bernt, N.; Anders, A. Osmotic pumping release fromethyl-hydroxypropyl-cellulose-coated pellets: A new mechanistic model. J. Control. Release 2010,142, 53–60.

7. Karrout, Y.; Siepmann, F.; Benzine, Y.; Paccou, L.; Guinet, Y.; Hedoux, A.; Siepmann, J. When drugs plasticizefilm coatings: Unusual formulation effects observed with metoprolol and eudragit rs. Int. J. Pharm. 2018,539, 39–49. [CrossRef]

8. Fahier, J.; Muschert, S.; Fayard, B.; Velghe, C.; Byrne, G.; Doucet, J.; Siepmann, F.; Siepmann, J. Importanceof air bubbles in the core of coated pellets: Synchrotron x-ray microtomography allows for new insights.J. Control. Release 2016, 237, 125–137. [CrossRef]

9. Nokhodchi, A.; Raja, S.; Patel, P.; Asareaddo, K. The role of oral controlled release matrix tablets in drugdelivery systems. Bioimpacts 2012, 2, 175.

10. Marucci, M.; Arnehed, J.; Jarke, A.; Matic, H.; Nicholas, M.; Boissier, C.; von Corswant, C. Effect ofthe manufacturing conditions on the structure and permeability of polymer films intended for coatingundergoing phase separation. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2013, 83, 301–306. [CrossRef]

11. Bhatt, B.; Kumar, V. Regenerated cellulose capsules for controlled drug delivery: Part iv. In-vitro evaluationof novel self-pore forming regenerated cellulose capsules. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2016, 97, 227. [CrossRef][PubMed]

12. Andersson, H.; Hjärtstam, J.; Stading, M.; von Corswant, C.; Larsson, A. Effects of molecular weight onpermeability and microstructure of mixed;ethyl-hydroxypropyl-cellulose films. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2013, 48,240–248. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

13. Kazlauske, J.; Cafaro, M.M.; Caccavo, D.; Marucci, M.; Lamberti, G.; Barba, A.A.; Larsson, A. Determinationof the release mechanism of theophylline from pellets coated with surelease((r))-a water dispersion of ethylcellulose. Int. J. Pharm. 2017, 528, 345–353. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14. Wang, Y.; Yang, J.; Yong, Q.; Yang, M.; Yan, Q.; Wei, H.; Li, S.; Gao, C. Novel ethylcellulose-coated pellets forcontrolled release of metoprolol succinate without lag phase: Characterization, optimization and in vivoevaluation. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 2015, 41, 1120. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

15. Larssonab, M.; Stadingcda, M. Effect of ethanol on the water permeability of controlled release filmscomposed of ethyl cellulose and hydroxypropyl cellulose. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2010, 76, 428–432.[CrossRef] [PubMed]

16. Maderuelo, C.; Zarzuelo, A.; Lanao, J.M. Critical factors in the release of drugs from sustained releasehydrophilic matrices. J. Control. Release 2011, 154, 2–19. [CrossRef]

17. Faisant, N.; Akiki, J.; Siepmann, F.; Benoit, J.P.; Siepmann, J. Effects of the type of release medium on drugrelease from plga-based microparticles: Experiment and theory. Int. J. Pharm. 2006, 314, 189–197. [CrossRef]

18. Corrigan, O.I.; Devlin, Y.; Butler, J. Influence of dissolution medium buffer composition on ketoprofen releasefrom er products and in vitro–in vivo correlation. Int. J. Pharm. 2003, 254, 147–154. [CrossRef]

19. Assifaoui, A.; Chambin, O.; Cayot, P. Drug release from calcium and zinc pectinate beads: Impact ofdissolution medium composition. Carbohydr. Polym. 2011, 85, 388–393. [CrossRef]

20. Asare-Addo, K.; Conway, B.R.; Larhrib, H.; Levina, M.; Rajabi-Siahboomi, A.R.; Tetteh, J.; Boateng, J.;Nokhodchi, A. The effect of ph and ionic strength of dissolution media on in-vitro release of two modeldrugs of different solubilities from hpmc matrices. Colloids Surf. B Biointerf. 2013, 111, 384–391. [CrossRef]

21. Johnson, J.L.; Holinej, J.; Williams, M.D. Influence of ionic strength on matrix integrity and drug release fromhydroxypropyl cellulose compacts. Int. J. Pharm. 1993, 90, 151–159. [CrossRef]

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 20 of 21

22. Bassi, P.; Kaur, G. Ph modulation: A mechanism to obtain ph-independent drug release. Exp. Opin.Drug Deliv. 2010, 7, 845–857. [CrossRef]

23. Wesseling, M.; Bodmeier, R. Drug release from beads coated with an aqueous colloidal ethylcellulosedispersion, aquacoat, or an organic ethylcellulose solution. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 1999, 47, 33–38.[CrossRef]

24. Ebube, N.K.; Jones, A.B. Sustained release of acetaminophen from a heterogeneous mixture of twohydrophilic non-ionic cellulose ether polymers. Int. J. Pharm. 2004, 272, 19–27. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

25. Prasad, V.K.; Shah, V.P.; Knight, P.; Malinowski, H.; Cabana, B.E.; Meyer, M.C. Importance of media selectionin establishment of in vitro-in vivo relationships for quinidine gluconate. Int. J. Pharm. 1982, 13, 1–8.[CrossRef]

26. Varma, M.V.S.; Panchagnula, R. Prediction of in vivo intestinal absorption enhancement on p-glycoproteininhibition, from rat in situ permeability. J. Pharma. Sci. 2005, 94, 1694–1704. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

27. Fadda, H.M.; Merchant, H.A.; Arafat, B.T.; Basit, A.W. Physiological bicarbonate buffers: Stabilisation anduse as dissolution media for modified release systems. Int. J. Pharm. 2009, 382, 56–60. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

28. Scheubel, E.; Adamy, L.; Hoffart, V.; Cardot, J.M. Selection of the most suitable dissolution method for anextended release formulation based on ivivc level a obtained on cynomolgus monkey. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm.2010, 36, 1320. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

29. Ravishankar, H.; Patil, P.; Samel, A.; Petereit, H.U.; Lizio, R.; Iyer-Chavan, J. Modulated release metoprololsuccinate formulation based on ionic interactions: In vivo proof of concept. J. Control. Release 2006, 111,65–72. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

30. Kendall, M.J.; Maxwell, S.R.; Sandberg, A.; Westergren, G. Controlled release metoprolol. Clinicalpharmacokinetic and therapeutic implications. Clin. Pharm. 1991, 21, 319. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

31. Kiyosawa, K. Theoretical and experimental studies on freezing point depression and vapor pressure deficit asmethods to measure osmotic pressure of aqueous polyethylene glycol and bovine serum albumin solutions.Biophys. Chem. 2003, 104, 171–188. [CrossRef]

32. Kedem, O.; Katchalsky, A. A physical interpretation of the phenomenological coefficients of membranepermeability. J. Gener. Physiol. 1961, 45, 143–179. [CrossRef]

33. Häbel, H.; Andersson, H.; Olsson, A.; Olsson, E.; Larsson, A.; Särkkä, A. Characterization of pore structureof polymer blended films used for controlled drug release. J. Control. Release 2015, 222, 151–158. [CrossRef][PubMed]

34. Wilson, C.G.; Siegel, R.A.; Rathbone, M.J.; Abu-Diak, O.A.; Andrews, G.P.; Jones, D.S.; Omidian, H.; Park, K.;Tsung, J.; Burgess, D.J. Fundamentals and Applications of Controlled Release Drug Delivery; Springer US: Boston,MA, USA, 2012; pp. 47–73.

35. Fukui, E.; Uemura, K.; Kobayashi, M. Studies on applicability of press-coated tablets usinghydroxypropylcellulose (hpc) in the outer shell for timed-release preparations. J. Control. Release 2000,68, 215–223. [CrossRef]

36. Mehta, R.Y.; Missaghi, S.; Tiwari, S.B.; Rajabi-Siahboomi, A.R. Application of ethylcellulose coating tohydrophilic matrices: A strategy to modulate drug release profile and reduce drug release variability.AAPS PharmSciTech 2014, 15, 1049–1059. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

37. Siepmann, J.; Siepmann, F. Modeling of diffusion controlled drug delivery. J. Control. Release 2012, 161,351–362. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

38. Hiremath, P.S.; Saha, R.N. Oral controlled release formulations of rifampicin. Part ii: Effect of formulationvariables and process parameters on in vitro release. Drug Deliv. 2008, 15, 159. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

39. Lee, B.; Ryu, S.G.; Cui, J.H. Formulation and release characteristics of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose matrixtablet containing melatonin. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 1999, 25, 493–501. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

40. Yang, M.; Xie, S.; Li, Q.; Wang, Y.; Chang, X.; Li, S.; Sun, L.; Huang, X.; Gao, C. Effects of polyvinylpyrrolidoneboth as a binder and pore-former on the release of sparingly water-soluble topiramate from ethylcellulosecoated pellets. Int. J. Pharm. 2014, 465, 187–196. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

41. Tiwari, S.B.; T Krishna, M.; M Raveendra, P.; Mehta, P.R.; Chowdary, P.B. Controlled release formulation oftramadol hydrochloride using hydrophilic and hydrophobic matrix system. Aaps Pharmscitech 2003, 4, 18–23.[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 80 21 of 21

42. Theeuwes, F.; Higuchi, T. Osmotic Dispensing Device With Maximum and Minimum Sizes for thePassageway. U.S. Patent US3916899A, 4 December 1975.

43. Herrlich, S.; Spieth, S.; Messner, S.; Zengerle, R. Osmotic micropumps for drug delivery. Adv. Drug. Deliv. Rev.2012, 64, 1617–1627. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).